NEWS ANALYSIS : U.S. Trial in Denny Case Would Face Long Odds : Courts: Some call for further prosecution of Watson, Williams. But a Detroit case shows the hazards that exist.

In the wake of numerous acquittals handed down last week by the Superior Court jury in the Reginald O. Denny beating trial, federal prosecutors are under public pressure to prosecute Denny’s two assailants on civil rights charges.

But scholars say there are numerous legal, practical and political problems that complicate the chances of successfully pursuing the case in federal court.

Despite the comparisons that are constantly drawn to the police beating of Rodney G. King, in which two Los Angeles police officers were convicted in federal court last spring of violating King’s civil rights, the matching of federal law to the Denny beating is strained at best, experts say.

“It’s an awkward fit,” said Southwestern University School of Law Prof. Robert A. Pugsley. “The laws may apply, but only by a little bit of contortion. The question is: Do we really need to go through all these contortions?”

As the city plunges into that debate, a decade-old Detroit case offers a harsh warning about the difficulty of prosecuting street crime with federal law.

On the night of June 19, 1982, Vincent Chin, a young Chinese-American draftsman, was chased down in the street by two unemployed auto workers and beaten to death with a baseball bat.

Ronald Ebens and Michael Nitz were accused of killing Chin out of anger over the depressed state of the auto industry. They had thought Chin was Japanese, Michigan state prosecutors claimed.

The two auto workers pleaded guilty to manslaughter but, in a move that outraged Asian-American across the country, were let off with probation.

The federal government subsequently charged the two men with violating Chin’s civil rights, using a decades-old statute that had been instrumental in attacking the Ku Klux Klan and other racist groups.

Although the prospect of a new trial elated those seeking justice for Chin’s death, it raised a host of new issues that turned the case into a legal quagmire.

When the Chin case entered the federal courts, what had been a relatively straightforward street killing became a battle over subtle concerns that were peripheral to the actual crime: Did they kill their victim because of his race? Did the two men intend to deprive their victim of his civil rights? Did they conspire together to commit their attack?

After three days of deliberations, the federal court jury acquitted Nitz of all charges. Ebens was acquitted on one count, but convicted on another. He was later set free through an appeal, then tried again and finally, five years after the beating, acquitted of all charges.

The lesson, said USC law professor Erwin Chemerinsky: “You can’t turn every murder and assault into a federal crime.”

The reason is the historical separation in federal and state jurisdictions.

Local crime has always been viewed as a state issue. Federal law only steps in on issues of interstate crime, such as kidnaping, and some specific areas where state law is incomplete or can be abused.

The relationship is complicated by the broad wording of federal statutes that, in theory at least, open the possibility of federalizing almost any crime, from looting to murder.

As Pugsley noted: “It goes without saying that if I kill you, I’ve violated your civil rights.”

What restrains the federal government from routinely prosecuting street crime is the traditional restriction on federal meddling in local issues, and the potential danger of violating the constitutional ban on repeatedly prosecuting a suspect for the same crime.

For the most part, only in extraordinary cases has the federal government moved to prosecute suspects who have been tried in state court.

One such case was the King beating. Not only had the four Los Angeles police officers been found not guilty of state charges in Superior Court in Simi Valley, but there also was an apparent violation of a federal statute specifically aimed at prohibiting abuses by law enforcement officers or government officials.

Last week, Damian Monroe Williams and Henry Keith Watson were acquitted of most of the charges lodged against them by the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office in the beatings of Denny and seven others. Williams was convicted of the only felony.

The push to file federal charges against Watson and Williams has been fueled by the public perception that their case is the mirror image of the King beating case.

In reality, the two cases bear little legal resemblance to each other.

The four LAPD officers were tried in federal court under the police-and-government abuse statute, one that cannot be used to prosecute Watson or Williams.

The related federal statute covering attacks of private individuals on other citizens is more demanding in several significant ways.

The law, which was aimed at organized racist violence, states: “If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States . . . they shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.”

The crux of the statute--and one of its hardest points to prove--is the issue of conspiracy, Pugsley said.

The law requires a showing that two or more people planned to commit a specific criminal act. In a federal trial of the Denny beating, prosecutors would have to show that Watson, Williams and others planned to attack Denny not just to injure him, but also with a specific intent to interfere with a federal right.

“Even though you have individuals at the same place at the same time, you still have to show their agreement to commit a crime,” Loyola University law professor Laurie L. Levenson said. “You need to show a meeting of the minds. It is theoretically possible, but we’re learning the lesson that what is legally possible is not necessarily what a jury will accept.”

Were federal prosecutors to charge the Denny defendants, they would likely prosecute under another statute that was created in the late 1960s to deter attacks on civil rights activists in the South.

The law prohibits injuring or intimidating anyone because of their race, color or religion to prevent them from participating in several federally protected activities, including voting, eating in a restaurant, enrolling in school, staying at a hotel and riding a bus. It also specifically prohibits interference with business during a riot or civil disturbance.

Again, the law requires proof of the perpetrators’ intent to violate the law. Pugsley said that although the charge may be legally plausible, it was precisely the issue of intent that was the weakest part of the state case against Watson and Williams, who were acquitted on every charge involving specific intent.

Federal prosecutors have tacitly acknowledged the mismatch in waging a civil rights prosecution against Watson and Williams.

When the two men were arrested last year, federal prosecutors quickly filed a complaint that they later withdrew to allow the state case to proceed.

The federal complaint did not allege a civil rights violation, but rather the crime of interfering with interstate commerce.

The statute, which prohibits the willful disabling of drivers and motor vehicles, was created in the 1950s, partly in response to violent labor conflicts that targeted company vehicles.

In the Denny beating, federal prosecutors described Williams and Watson’s crime as having attacked Denny when he was “hauling a load of gravel from Azusa to Inglewood so that it could be mixed with other substances from various parts of the country and sold as concrete.”

Observed Chemerinsky: “It’s kind of a stretch.”

Although the interstate commerce law is worded broadly enough to cover Denny’s beating, its application in this case pushes to the edge of what it was intended to combat, scholars say.

“I don’t think anyone watched the attack on Denny and thought, ‘Oh, they’re interfering with interstate commerce,” Pugsley said. “No one thinks that way.”

What ultimately will guide the government in its decision on prosecuting Watson and Williams is a Justice Department policy drafted more than 30 years ago to restrict “dual” or “successive” prosecutions.

The policy states that “there should be no federal trial for the same act or acts unless the reasons are compelling.”

Two such reasons outlined by the policy are if the state trial fails to address substantial federal interests, and if a federal trial would result in an increased sentence.

Because Watson and Williams were convicted of several counts-- a felony and five misdemeanors--scholars say it appears unlikely that their cases meet the requirements.

Beyond the legal issues, there is also the political question of what is to be gained by the continued pursuit of Watson and Williams.

“Another prolonged trial is the last thing this city needs,” Pugsley said. “It could only cause more trouble than it’s worth.”

* COMING TOGETHER: About 1,000 people gathered at First AME Church for what they hoped would be an era of racial peace in L.A. B3

Key Statutes

Here are three sections of federal law that could be used if federal prosecutors decide to file charges against Henry Keith Watson and Damian Monroe Williams.

Destruction of motor vehicle or motor vehicle facilities (Title 18, Section 33)

* “Whoever, with like intent, willfully disables or incapacitates any driver or person employed in connection with the operation or maintenance of the motor vehicle (engaged in interstate or foreign commerce), or in any way lessens the ability of such person to perform his duties . . . shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

Conspiracy against rights of citizen (Title 18, Section 241)

* “If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States . . . They shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.”

Federally protected activities (Title 18, Section 245(b)(3))

* “Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with . . . during or incident to a riot or civil disorder, any person engaged in a business in commerce or affecting commerce . . . if bodily injury results, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned no more than 10 years, or both.”

Here is the federal statute used to prosecute the officers in the federal Rodney G. King beating trial.

Deprivation of rights under color of law (Title 18, Section 242)

* “Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any state, territory or district to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States . . . and if bodily injury results, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years or both.”